About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
't have to. >>guest: the law says you must give two months notice. that would be the friday before election day. the administration doesn't want the lay off notices so earlier this year, this summer, they said the defense contractors, lockheed market, you don't need to send the notices and look heed said i am not seeing a lost specifics as far as preventing us from going forward with not doing it so on friday the administration offered to pick up the liability because this is the law as well as the costs of limiting the guys go if the layoffs happen. this is a lost deal making, a lot of politics in this situation because the defense contractors big in virginia which is a battle ground state. >>neil: can they do that? is that legal? >>guest: well, republicans say no, republicans are saying the white house is playing politics with this. the g.o.p. is going to go on the offense on the sequester. they note that the house republicans have passed a plan that would hold off the cuts and would replace them with other cuts. the administration has not adopted a specific plan. there has been
. it is against the laws of nature. it is accruing for itself power we never gave. >>neil: i will put you down as "not liking" this. >>judge napolitano: mildly. >>neil: i could make a point, a stretch of a point, to say in schools, maybe. but now you are in my home. >>judge napolitano: the government with like to get in our homes. petroleum did not go help to government unless you are ron paul to shrink it but to use the power to regulate human behavior. some believe they are regulating human behavior if the good. others just do not agree. >>neil: the good argument is we get thinner, healthy, and the health care costs go down. >>judge napolitano: that is the argument. >>judge napolitano: the same federal government that cannot deliver the meal to our homes reliably wants to come in can tell us what to eat in our homes. >>neil: how would they police it? >>judge napolitano: probably put the burden were on the states so they will bribe the states. you want money to fix your highways and schools? regulate what people do in their homes. have the police knock on your doors at dip -- dinner tame. >>n
about. >>neil: the president says that law is on the books. why know what he is referring to. mitt romney called him on that. what do you make of that and the approach romney took on that, there is no such law or incentive. >>guest: this is the way to gain altitude with your opponent to show that the product or the service or the solution being offered is inferior and has not worked. he says, i've been in business 25 years i have in clue what you are talking about. what are you doing, 26 million people unemployed and you went after health care in what were you thinking in i am appalled. it was like the father telling the son i am disappointed. the c.e.o. took charge last night, it was not a political debate. mitt romney showing the american economy, the american people, i can run this country. i can solve these problems. >>neil: but he brought egg back to how much we as a government are spending. the deficit was front and center. react to this. >> the president said he would cut the deficit in half. unfortunately, he doubled it. $1 trillion deficits for the last fur -- four years.
under this law? it is not moral, it is unethical. is it probably legal? yes, you have to pay the fee. >> the governor brown put a message on this legislation saying you know what, i don't know if this is constitutional. he put a message, it is a very rare thing, like he is not sure this is constitutional. >> let me flip this. i am a tax cheat, i don't pay my taxes. if i'm walking down the street and someone has a gun to my head should a scoop protect me? >>lis: of course. yes. you got me both ways because is different. a firefighter for your home should come there and protect you and your children your family whether you pay the fee. the point is it is a fee, not a tax. just to make sure that your community is safe. that's all it is. $150? really? really? really? >> i'm pretty sure whatever reviewing court looks at it will find that the label does not rule the day. it is the effect, which is a levee, a charge, a charge on the taxpayers of california and they will pay it with a two-thirds majority vote. there has to a constitutionality and procedural constitutionality. >> if we allow
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)